Here is some info an a framework for utopia.

Politics in the age of Anarchy

The second tradition was libertarian individualism, which resisted both social arche and political kratos. This tradition regarded precedent and authority with less respect and made claims of new rights and liberties for individuals, on the basis of a transcendent authority known only through reason and/or faith. Such thinking owed much to Protestant belief in free association, individual autonomy, social contract, and the right of resistance to unjust authority. It gave rise to qausi-libertarian notion of individual rights that a man can only surrender freely or forfeit by misdemeanor. John Locke (1632-1704) 's contribution was to rationalize many radical notions such as the state of nature, the consent of the governed, and natural rights. The state of nature denied any natural subordination to family, clan, class, or community. The consent of the governed invalidated both Divine Right and Ancient Constitutions. Natural rights (when assumed to be inalienable and self-evident, and therefore unarguable) insulated the individual from all outside authority, thus making the individual himself the grounds of truth and basis of justice.

Later radicals ( the martyred Algernon Sidney, polemicists John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, and the rable-rousing rake John Wilkes, champion of the American cause in the reign of George III) were generally hostile to clerical authority, "established churches", and the absolute sovereignty of kings or parliaments. They stressed expansion of the franchise, abandonment of feudal rank, abolition of arbitrary power, respect for private property, and wide latitude for personal freedom of conscience and expression. Like Locke, they were very popular in the colonies before the American Revolution. Half of the private libraries in America are believed to have had a copy of Cato's Letters by Trenchard and Gordon. Wilkes gave his name to Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania; Wilkesboro, North Carolina; and John Wilkes Booth. Sidney had Hampden-Sidney College named after him, and in 1825 the governing board of the University of Virginia declared two works to be "generally approved by our fellow citizens" for "general principles of liberty and the rights of man": John Locke's Two Treatises of Government and Sidney's Discourses Concerning Government.

The Individualist

In between the Radical and the Paleolibertarian, we have another kind of libertarian, who is really more of an Individualist.

The Individualist's view of the world is less political than the Paleolibertarian's. While the Paleolibertarian might describe his position as "us against the State", the Individualist is more likely to describe his position as "me against the world". He frequently feels equally threatened by both social and political pressures. He is deeply resentful of people trying to "impose their morality" on others. He chafes within archical organizations and prefers independence and self-employment when he can get them. He is pro-progress, anti-traditon, and often anti-Christian. He is often a rationalist and a materialist and is sometimes and "Objectivist" disciple of Ayn Rand.

The Individualist's sense of justice is fundamentally individualistic, with heavy emphasis on individual rights and liberties. For this reason, the Individualist is not as anti-government as the Paleolibertarian. He is not without a pro-government principle; Government exists to protect the rights of individuals and enforce contracts between them. In contrast to the Paelolibertarian's insistence on decentralization, the Individualist looks to higher levels of government to keep the lower levels in check, using federal law and federal judges to curb excesses of state and local power. He is extra sensitive to threats to civil liberties, but less bother than the Paleolibertarian by anti-discrimination laws. His solution to the problem of dominance is to enlist government in the service of individual rights.

The Inidividualist is a fierce defender of property rights and the free market. He hes more hope for capitalism than democracy, seeing democracy as a potential threat to individual liberty and capitalism as the surest means of satisfying his own desire and breaking down social and political restraints. He favors legalization of victimless crimes such as prostitution and recreational use of narcotics, both because he resents restriction on private behavior and because he fears the police measures used to enforce them.

Despite the continuing growth of government, at home and abroad, the Individualist is brightly optimistic about the future. Always individual in his focus, he is less concerned about the weight of government on society than about its weight on himself. As long as he remains free to pursue his own happiness and achieve his own self-actualization, he is not alarmed.

Framework for Utopia

"That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot by any compact deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety." George Mason Virginia Declaration of Rights June 12, 1776

"The basic independence of the individual consist of his loyalty to his own mind; it is his perception of the facts of reality, his understanding, his judgment, that he refuses to sacrifice to the unproven assertions of others. That is the meaning of intellectual independence (and that is the essence of an individualist)." Ayn Rand "Counterfeit Individualism"

It might surprise many to learn that many libertarians are really rather pro-government, particularly the Individualist libertarians in the upper left of our Compass. Government, after all, provides the necessary framework for the individual's pursuit of happiness. Without a governmental framework, solitary individuals wouldn't stand a chance in the dog-eat-dog world.

The word framework appears often in libertarian texts. Friedrich Hayek writes that a "carefully thought out legal framework is required" for competition to work. Milton Friedman writes that government provides "the framework within which individuals are free to pursue their own objectives". David Boaz writes that "the role of government is not impose a particular morality but to establish a framework for rules that will guarantee each individual freedom to pursue his own good in his own way". Virginia Postrel writes that "Dynamic rules that establish a framework within which people can create nested, competing frameworks of more-specific rules". F.A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1944), p. 41; Milton Friedman introduction to preceding, p. xi; David Boaz, Libertarianism: A Primer (New York: The Free Press, 1997), p. 106; Virginia Postrel, The Future and Its Enemies: The Growing Conflict Over Creativity, Enterprise, and Progress (New York: The Free Press, 1998), p. 142.

The phrase "framework for utopia" comes from Harvard's Robert Nozick, author of Anarchy, State, and Utopia. This 1974 libertarian classic made the case for a minimal state charged solely with protecting individuals and their sovereign rights. In libertarian terms, Nozick was a minarchist rather than an anarchist. His libertarianism was less anti-state than pro-individual.

Individualism is the basis of the libertarianism advocated by David Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute, in his book Libertarianism: A Primer. Boaz writes:

"For libertarians, the basic unit of social analysis is the individual. It's hard to imagine how it could be anything else. Individuals are, in all cases, the source,= and foundation of creativity, activity, and society. Only individuals can think, love, pursue projects, act. Groups don't have projects or intentions... Most important, only individuals can take responsibility for their actions."Boaz Libertarianism, p. 95.

That is what distinguishes Individualist libertarians from all others; a singular focus on the individual, to the exclusion of all groups (family, church, tribe, class, corporation, community, race and nation). Some libertarians are much more anti-state out of concerns for the threat that the state poses to such groups. Their ideals society is not a group bound together by mutual obligation or archical authority, but a free association of autonomous individuals protected by an accepted legal framework.

Before going further, let's establish a useful distinction between libertarianism and individualism.

Libertarianism is a rationale fro limited government based on the concept of self-ownership. The rationale assumes that every person owns his or her self, and nobody owns anybody else. Self-ownership is absolute and without political obligation (as opposed to moral or social obligation). In other words, no force may be used against a person as long as that person respect the property rights of others. Government exists solely to protect said ownership rights. They may use force retributively only, to punish people for violating the ownership rights of others. Individuals may also use force, but only in self-defense. The first use of force by individuals or government is forbidden. Libertarians of all kinds use this rationale to define strict limits on government.

Individualism, on the other hand, is amoral philosophy exalting the freedom and happiness of the individual above all else. Individualism is based on the belief that the individual alone is competent to judge what is best for him. This was the belief of many early Reformers and Levellers, who claimed for themselves the right to decide matters of faith and morals, independent of all priests and princes. It is also the beliefs of modern Individualist like Boaz and Hayek, who claim as Hayek does in The Road to Serfdom, that "scales of value can only exist in individual minds" and therefore no scale of value can apply to all. "This is the fundamental fact on which this whole philosophy of individualism is based", Hayek writes. "It is the recognition of the individual as the ultimate judge of his ends, the belief that as far as possible his own views ought to govern all his actions, that forms the essence of the individualist position". Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, p.66.

Many Individualists advocate libertarianism because it helps them justify political regime allowing maximum personal liberty. But not all Individualists are libertarians, and not all libertarians are Individualists. Whereas libertarians are defined by their rationale for limiting the use of kratos, Individualists are defined by their desire to both limit kratos and deny arche. They can tolerate a particulare archy when it is freely chosen and to their liking, but they resist "scales of value" not of their own design.

In general, Individualists would use government to protect individuals from other individuals, but not to protect individuals from themselves or force them to help others. This provides a more affirmative role for government than most people realize. The government's job is still to defend the country, catch and punish criminals, settle civil disputes and compel parties to fulfill contracts. At a minimum, this means not only a military and a police force, but also a robust legal system to handle civil and criminal cases. For a modern capitalist economy, the legal system needs quite an elaborate body of property law setting forth clear property rights, so that assets can be used as capital. Such a system would inevitably involve more government in a range of issues, from protecting the environment from pollution to protecting consumers and shareholders from negligence and fraud.

But many moderate Individualists would go further and use force to protect Individuals from discrimination on the basis of race, color, creed, sex, sexual preference, etc. Strictly speaking, such a use of force violates the libertarian principle of self-ownership by initiating force make them ignore a protected condition. This deprives property owners of the free use of their property, but it also deprives individuals of their freedom of association, which compromises both freedom of speech (by forcing people into mixed company where they must watch what they say) and their freedom of conscience (by putting the force of law behind prescribed moral choices). Even so, many Individualists back such a use of force as a desirable addition to the legal framework, on the grounds that it expands freedom and opportunity for some individuals.

Cathy Young, a contributing editor Reason magazine, makes the popular distinction between equal opportunity and equal outcome, reasoning that force is justified to bring about equal opportunity but not equal outcomes. But without equal outcomes we can't really have equal opportunity, and the reason we pass laws guaranteeing equal opportunity is that we are not satisfied with present outcomes. When asked at Cato Institute in 2001 how laws guaranteeing equal opportunity could be justified if equal outcomes were not an appropriate goals for public policy, Young admitted in public that on this issue she is "not that libertarian". Author's questions to Young at the Cato Institute in 2000.

Young is not alone among moderate Individualists in being not that libertarian. When in 1996 the United States Supreme Court struck down an amendment to the Colorado state constitution prohibiting local jurisdictions from banning discrimination on the basis of of homosexuality, Clint Bolick of the Institute for Justice hailed the decision as "very important in restricting all kinds of government actions. This is not about gay rights, it's about individual rights." Bolick rejoiced that the Court may have recognized "significant new restraints on majority tyranny." He even praised Justice Anthony Kennedy, the author of the decision, for "quietly establishing a libertarian jurisprudence on the Court." "Homosexuals: A Victory for Rationality" The Economist May 25, 1996; Congressional Record, Wednesday, June 26, 1996; The Supreme Court case was Romer v. Evans.

Bolick's reactions reveals two more controversial aspects of Individualist libertarianism: its hostility to popular rule and its enthusiasm for central power. Bolick is the author of Grassroots Tyranny, published by the Cato Institute in 1993. The Institute for Justice is the Individualist equivalent of the American Civil Liberties Union (a public-interest law firm dedicated to defending individuals from the grassroots tyranny of state and local government). The Institute has used the courts to attack a wide range of state and local laws, from the District of Columbia's ban on street-corner shoe shine stands to the State of Texas's ban on sodomy. Often such laws are acts of a community's democratic will. The Colorado amendment passed by statewide referendum and could not have been more democratic. It was struck down by the United States Supreme Court, arguably the least democratic power in the land. But what mattered to Bolick was that the Colorado amendment "singled out gay for hostile treatment". Gay champion Barney Frank was so pleased that he entered Bolick's words into the Congressional Record for June 26, 1996, p. E1174

Neither Individualism nor libertarianism is much concerned with how political decisions are made, only with whether decisions respect individual rights. Boaz writes that the basic political issue is the relationship of the individual to the state and the most important political value is liberty, not democracy. Boaz, Libertarianism, pp. 14-15. Hayek was of the same mind:

"Democracy is essentially a means, a utilitarian device for safeguarding internal peace and individual freedoms. As such it is by no means infallible or certain. Nor must we forget that there has been more cultural and spiritual freedom under an autocratic rule than under some democracies (and it is at least conceivable that under the government of a very homogeneous and doctrinaire majoirty democratic government might be as oppressive as the worst dictatorship). Hayek, The Road to Serfdom p. 78.

To the anti-state Paleolibertarians, moderate Individualists are often no more libertarian than many Paleoconservatives. Both Individualists and Paleoconservatives believe in minimal government, but both would use that minimal government to serve their preferred freedoms. Where a Paleoconservative would allow local communities to ban sodomy, an Individualist would use the Federal Government to stop local governments from doing so.

Such enthusiasm for Big Government in the service of anti-traditional Individualism alarms Paleolibertarians, who see "libertarian centralism" as a threat to liberty. But there is little in Individualism against centralism, as long as the central power is dedicated to the right purposes. Ideally, Individualists would have their preferred framework cover the whole world, to give themselves all possible choice and freedom. Hayek himself wrote of the need for a worldwide federation to eliminate the pointless striving of rival nations. This, he wrote, was the hope off all right-thinking nineteenth-century liberals. "[They] may not have been fully aware how essential a complement of their principles a federal organization of the different states formed; but there were few among them who did not express their belief in it as an ultimate goal". Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, p.257, emphasis in the original.

In contrast to Paleolibertarians, who typically view all international organizations with intense suspicion, Individualists are predisposed in favor of globalization. and other rather blase about the pitfalls of international arrangements like the North American Free Trade Agreement, the World Trade Organization, and the European Union. The key is whether such arrangements provide benefits to individuals; their impact nation-states and local culture is not a concern.

The further we move from the center of the Compass, the more akratic Individualists become, and the more they sympathize with the extreme laissez-faire of the Libertarian Party. The self-styled "Party of Princple" does not shy away from the logical extemes of its principles. It opposed all penalties for so-called victimless crimes and would repeal all restrictions on alcohol, tobacco, firearms, explosives, drugs, gambling, prostitution, sodomy, pornography, obscenity, and suicide. It supports the separation of church and state, school and state, business and state, and bank and state. It would radically downsize government by abolishing dozens of federal agencies. It also supports "the eventual repeal of all taxation". After all, taxation requires a first use of force, which is not allowed to anyone. All public funding must come from voluntary user fees and court costs. Everything else is robbery.

(Note: Information on the platform of the Libertarian Party is dated due to being written prior to the 2006 LP Reform Caucus revolution which scrapped the prior platform for the minimalist one used now with plans for being whittled down even more.) http://reformthelp.org/ (They must have lost their go daddy account now though.)

Much of the Libertarian Party's platform reflects the influence of extreme Paleoliobertarians like the late Murray Rothbard. Before he broke with party in 1990, Rothbard was a party stalwart. He was very involved in drafting the platform, which still reads as much as it did in Rothbard's day. Paelolibertarian thinking was also represented in person by two-time Libertarian Presidential Candidate Harry Browne, author of How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World and Why Government Doesn't Work. (More on Browne in Smashing the Clock: Paleoloibertarianism)

But some parts of the platform evince a more Individualist orientation. The preamble of the Libertarian Party's 2000 platform begins:

"As Libertarians we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives, and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefits of others.

We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that brings freedom. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.""National Platform of the Libertarian Party", Libertarian Party accessed March 6, 2002.

Not the distinction in the lat line between government and "any authoritarian power". The platform does not explain what it means by "authoritarian power", but its use of the term isn't the party's only concern. Other parts of the platform indicate libertarians don't much like restraints of any kind.

For example, the platform is quite critical of the military. It calls for ending the ban on homosexuals in the military (done already, so a mute point by now), abolishing the Uniform Code of Miilitary Justice (UCMJ), and granting military members "the same right to quit their jobs as other persons". "National Platform of the Libertarian Party", Libertarian Party accessed March 6, 2002. Now it could be argued that upon libertarian principles that everyone in today's military (as opposed to when it was founded in 1971) is a volunteer who has signed a legal contract to obey the orders and abide by the UMCJ for a limited term of service. Nevertheless, the Libertarian Party thinks the military is too traditional and authoritarian.

The party also opposes government involvement in family life, but does not always respect parental rights. Besides conceding that child abuse sometimes warrants state intervention, the platform states that "children always have the right to establish their maturity by assuming administration and protection of their own rights, ending dependency on their parents or other guardians, and assuming all responsibilities of adulthood". "National Platform of the Libertarian Party", Libertarian Party accessed March 6, 2002. Apparently, parents would have no right to stop their sons or daughters of any age frpom running away to live on the streets or with someone else.

The platform further supports "repeal of all laws regarding consensual sexual relations, including prostitution and solicitation", without making any exception for minors or for sexual relations between family members. The crimes of statutory rape and incest would no longer exist. Neither would adultery or polygamy. Marriage itself would receive no legal sanction, since every marriage is a "consensual sexual relation". Even more, the platform would bar the government from restricting private adoption services, which would effectively legalize the buying and selling of children for sexual service. Whether Libertarians know it or not, their 2000 platform is a pedophile's dream.

Not all Inidividualists are laissez-faire in their thinking. Hayek himself wrote "Probably nothing has done so much harm to the liberal cause as the wooden insistence of some liberals on certain rough rules of thumb, above all the principle of laissez-faire". Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, p. 21.

But with Rousseau (aka Rousseau Was Right is this as a trope), Inidividualist believe that man is basically good (good enough to be trusted with great freedom, which they believe will result in Nozick's libertarian Utopia). Boaz writes "We need a limited government to usher in an unlimited future". The catch is Utopia isn't Paradise. Boaz again:

"No a libertarian world wouldn't be a perfect one. There will stil be inequality, poverty, crime, corruption, man's inhumanity to man. But unlike the theocratic visionaries, the pie-in-the-sky socialist utopians, or the starry-eyed Mr. Fixits of the New Deal and the Great Society, libertarians don't promise you a rose garden... Libertarianism holds out the goal not of a perfect society but of a freer one. It promises a world in which more of the decision will be made in the right way by the right person: you. The result will not be an end to crime and poverty and inequality but less (often much less) of those things most of the time." Boaz, Libertarianism, p. 5, 26.

Actually, some starry-eyed, visionary, utopian, libertarian Individualists do promise at least a virtual rose garden, filled with unending progress, plenty, and adventure. "We live in an enchanted world, a world suffused with intelligence, a world of our making. In such plentitude, too, lies and adventurous future", writes Virginia Postrel, ex-editor-in-chief of Reason magazine in her book The Future and its Enemies: The Growing Conflict Over Creativity, Enterprise, and Progress. Postrel, The Future and Its Enemies, pp. 217-218.

Postrel see the world divided into two warring camps: dynamists who welcome change and statists who hate it. Statists are further divided into reactionaries who want to lock in the past and technocrats who want to lock in the future. But these are just new names for old actors: dynamists are libertarians, reactionaries are conservatives, and technocrats are liberals. Postrel is merely accentuating the positive of her own position, founded upon the progresive power of libertarian Individualism. Instead of running down government, she is playing up the individual's heroic potential. All the usual themes are there: liberty, equality, diversity, and the future:

"There is in fact no single future: 'the' future encompasses the many microfutures of individuals and thier associations... How we feel about the evolving future tells us who we are as individuals and as a civilization: Do we search for stasis (a regulated, engineered world)? Do we value stability and control, or evolution and learning? Postrel, The Future and Its Enemies, p. xiv.

There aren't many rules in the dynamist world. The few that Postrel outlines are, in so many words, the standard libertarian guarantees of life, liberty, property, expression, and protection within a legal framework to settle disputes and enforce contracts. These rules serve an "open society" and an "open-ended future". They "let people forge new bonds, invent new institutions, and find better ways of doing things". They "allow us to create the bonds of life (to turn the atoms of our individual selves, our ideas, and the stuff of our material world into the complex social, intellectual, and technological molecules that make up our civilization)".

Postrel talks a lot aboput individuals and civilization, but says nearly nothing of families, churches, corporations, communities, races, or nations. When she does talk of groups, she favors groups without leaders, namely flocks of birds, ant colonies, and the Internet. Other have talked of bees (Bernard Mandeville) and an invisible hand (Adam Smith). Postrel doesn't mention these, but here point is the same: free individuals create their own order as they pursue thier own interests. Postrel does mention Hayek many times and uses his words to describe her dynamists as "the party of life, the party that favors free growth and spontaneous evolution". Postrel, The Future and Its Enemies, p. 30.

Postrel tell us, "The dynamist moral vision, then, emphasizes individual flourishing and individual responsiblity. It see human nature fulfilled in learning, creating, and adapting to the world". The result is a glorious diversity of endevours:

"A dynamist world has room for a wide range of enterprise: for both Promise Keppers and Ms., for the macho culture of Intel and the zaniness of Southwest Airlines, for Web site dedicated to biblical exegesis and Web site dedicated to pornography, for punks and debutantes, Mozart and Madonna, The Little Mermaid and Pulp Fiction. Postrel, The Future and Its Enemies, pp. 32, 33.

This is all well and good with dynamists, who are always leading but never coming to a knowledge of unchanging truth. Individualists often stop short of such claims. They are not quite relativists, for they reserve for themselves the right to reject what they don't like. But most often they talk only what should be allowed under an ideal legal framework. "Rights theory can't tell us what moral obligations we ought to feel towards family members", Boaz admits. "Libertarianism is a political philosophy, not a complete moral code. It prescribes certain minimal rules for living together in a peaceful, productive society (property, contract and freedom) and leaves further moral teachings to civil society. Boaz, Libertarianism, pp. 86, 231.

For their part Individualists don't make much good to say about moral teaching. Hayek condemns at length "collectivist ethics" that impose a "complete ethical code". "No such complete ethical code exists", he insists. Boaz dodges the question of whether unborn babies have a "right to life". "Obviously, this is not in the sense which Jefferson uses the term", he writes. "We might do better to stick to 'right to self-ownership.'" On the same issue the Party of Principle turns uncharacteristically pragmatic. It opposes funding for abortion on the grounds that some believe abortion to be murder, but opposes government doing anything about such alleged murders. It seems that one's rights as an individual depend on someone else's labor. Call it the Labor Theory of Human Value. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, p. 65; Boaz, Libertarianism, p. 64; "National Platform of the Libertarian Party", Libertarian Party accessed March 6, 2002.

This reluctance to make moral judgments is why everyone else around the Compass suspects that these libertarians are just libertines who don't believe in right or wrong but push libertarianism because it would let them do as they please. Few Individualists believe in God. One poll of Libertarian Party supporters found that only 27 percent believe in God, though 97 percent of Americans did. The poll's authors noted that "many libertarians are not only areligious, but militantly antireligious, as indicated by extensive written comments". Libertarian causes often include among other supporters people like John Stagliano, maker of hardcore skin flicks, reader of Reason magazine, and contributor to the Cato Institute, the Libertarian Party, and the Drug Policy Foundation. Llewelyn H. Rockwell, Jr., "The Case for Paleolibertarianism", Liberty, January 1990; Jock Friedly, "Cato Institute and Hard-Core Supporters in Porn Filmmaker", The Hill July 8, 1998.

Even some Individualists judge libertarians harshly. The atheistic followers of Ayn Rand have been especially critical of them. To Randians, libertarianism is not a philosophy because it claims no single basis in truth. It is instead a bare-bones political program, justified in different ways by different people. Some ground their rights in religion, but many others are philosophical skeptics, moral subjectivists, and social anarchists. Randians consider all of these positions inconsistent with reason, order, and freedom. One has written of libertarianism's "perversion of liberty". Rand herself refused the libertarian label and instead called herself a "radical for capitalism".

What libertarianism lacks, Rand tried to provide with her own philosophy of objectivism. Objectivism, quite literally, makes selfishness a virtue, defining selfishness as the rational pursuit of one's own well-being. This is not a liscense to do as you please, however, for Rand considered many things such as homosexuality and feminism to be irrational. Rand despised Christianity as irrational and thus immoral superstition. Objectivism was her antidote to the immorality of Christian humility and self-sacrifice. "My philosophy in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason his only absolute." "About the Author" Atlas Shrugged (New York: Plume, 2005).

Whether Rand's Objectivism succeeds in avoiding subjectivism is an open question. Her "only absolute" has led many of her followers to reject her judgments on homosexuality and feminism on the grounds that Rand didn't have all the facts. Radians have also reasoned differently in the struggle against Islamic fundamentalism. Some have opposed the war in Iraq, citing Rand's own opposition to Korea, Vietnam, World Wars I and II. Others (including her disciples at the Ayn Rand Institute, the Objectivist Center, and Reason magazine) have welcomed the Iraq War and the broader War on Terror as rational responses to the threat of irrational anti-liberal Islam. One side cites Rand's warnings about the "New Fascism" she believed was responsible for fomenting war abroad; the other side, recalling Rand's endorsement of Palestinian territories as "savages", has laid aside complaints about the state's part in stirring Islamic extremism and rationalized a new colonialism to spread the gospel of rational self-interest to the Middle East and Eastern Europe. Chris Matthew Sciabarra, "Understanding the Global Crisis: Reclaiming Rand's Radical Legacy", The Free Radical, May/June 2003, and Barry Loberfield, "The (Tanbgled) Roots of Objectivist Foreign Policy", Lew Rockwell .com, Accessed August 23, 2005.

It is not clear what side Rand herself would have taken, but since 9-11 the weight of Objectivist and Individualist opinion has been for war. Most leading Individualists have either kept quiet like David Boaz or signed on in support like Virginia Postrel. At the Cato Institute, aggresive globalists Tom Palmer and Brink Lindsey are in, and the anti-interventionists Ivan Eland and Charles Pena are out. Eland is now at the libertarian Independent Institute; Pena is a fellow of the Coalition for Realistic Foreign Policy (CRFP), but form the start the coalition was comprimised by a general reluctance to implicate Israel and by the sympathy of many coalition members for the Bush administration's stated goal of "global democratic revolution". They disagree with Bush on the matters of means but not of ends.

edited 17th Oct '11 11:40:43 PM by FastEddie

I've been waiting for someone else to say this.

Freedom is overrated.

Problem number one.

You think a utopia is possible.

This is a nitpick more than anything, but the military is kind of supposed to be authoritarian. It's the fucking military, which needs a hierarchy. Too much individualism in the situations the military gets involved in ends up with dead soldiers and a fucked up chain of command. You choose to go into the military then you accept that.

Not my idea of utopia, therefore by definition not utopia.

^ I admit, I haven't handled the wall of text in the first paragraph. But if everyone has an idea of the perfect society for them personally, and if all those societies are sustainable and don't involve harming members of other societies, then everyone can live in their perfect society if people are allowed choice. (Admittedly, the second "if" is pretty big, and admittedly, I'm not used to Libertarians admitting that anyone could possibly be happier under a strong government than a weak one . . .)

edited 12th Oct '11 12:30:22 AM by feotakahari

A Libertarian can certainly be pro-strong government. What distinguishes a libertarian is that the libertarian also believes that the government should do as little as possible other than ensure the protection of basic human rights.

It would be hard to find a self-identified libertarian who believes that the police shouldn't have the power to arrest and detain criminals, for example. They simply believe that there should be fewer crimes so that the police can focus on dangeorus criminals, such as thieves, murderers, etc.

Many libertarians also believe the government should have the power to raise and collect some taxes. A strong government is necessary to enforce collection of revenue. But libertarians also believe that there should be very few taxes to collect in the first place.

So it is libertarian to believe that governement should be strong, but only in the narrow areas where it's involved. Libertarians generally believe that a government that governs least governs best, so they support stripping away the unnecesary functions and focusing the limited resources on where government should be involved.

problem being, not everyone else considers those the only functions government should handle.

Note: This is technically a thread on Individualism and not Libertarianism! Then name isn't Framework for Utopia: Libertarianism, but Framework for Utopia: Individualism!

@Ace Of Spades: Yes, but that's why there will be another thread in the future after this one I will make about the other strand of libertarianism.

Smashing the Clock: Paleolibertarianism

Side Note: This includes a disscusion of the 2000 platform. All these problem points have been deleted as of December 2006. The platform is divisive as pro-life Libertarians see the platform as too anti-life.

Current LP Platform

Preamble

As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.

In the following pages we have set forth our basic principles and enumerated various policy stands derived from those principles.

These specific policies are not our goal, however. Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime, and it is to this end that we take these stands. Statement of Principles

We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.

We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.

We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life — accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action — accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property — accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.

Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.

1.0 Personal Liberty

Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.

1.1 Expression and Communication

We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology. We favor the freedom to engage in or abstain from any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others. We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion.

1.2 Personal Privacy

Libertarians support the rights recognized by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, and property. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure should include records held by third parties, such as email, medical, and library records. Only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes. We favor the repeal of all laws creating “crimes” without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.

1.3 Personal Relationships

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.

1.4 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

1.5 Crime and Justice

Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to themselves. We support restitution of the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. We oppose reduction of constitutional safeguards of the rights of the criminally accused. The rights of due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must not be denied. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law.

1.6 Self-Defense

The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. We affirm the individual right recognized by the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense. We oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition.

2.0 Economic Liberty

Libertarians want all members of society to have abundant opportunities to achieve economic success. A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.

2.1 Property and Contract

Property rights are entitled to the same protection as all other human rights. The owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others. We oppose all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and interest rates. We advocate the repeal of all laws banning or restricting the advertising of prices, products, or services. We oppose all violations of the right to private property, liberty of contract, and freedom of trade. The right to trade includes the right not to trade — for any reasons whatsoever. Where property, including land, has been taken from its rightful owners by the government or private action in violation of individual rights, we favor restitution to the rightful owners.

2.2 Environment

We support a clean and healthy environment and sensible use of our natural resources. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Pollution and misuse of resources cause damage to our ecosystem. Governments, unlike private businesses, are unaccountable for such damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights in resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. We realize that our planet's climate is constantly changing, but environmental advocates and social pressure are the most effective means of changing public behavior.

2.3 Energy and Resources

While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy. We oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production.

2.4 Government Finance and Spending

All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors. Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their consent. We support the passage of a "Balanced Budget Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution, provided that the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes.

2.5 Money and Financial Markets

We favor free-market banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository institutions of all types. Individuals engaged in voluntary exchange should be free to use as money any mutually agreeable commodity or item. We support a halt to inflationary monetary policies and unconstitutional legal tender laws.

2.6 Monopolies and Corporations

We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of companies based on voluntary association. We seek to divest government of all functions that can be provided by non-governmental organizations or private individuals. We oppose government subsidies to business, labor, or any other special interest. Industries should be governed by free markets.

2.7 Labor Markets

We support repeal of all laws which impede the ability of any person to find employment. We oppose government-fostered forced retirement. We support the right of free persons to associate or not associate in labor unions, and an employer should have the right to recognize or refuse to recognize a union. We oppose government interference in bargaining, such as compulsory arbitration or imposing an obligation to bargain.

2.8 Education

Education, like any other service, is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Schools should be managed locally to achieve greater accountability and parental involvement. Recognizing that the education of children is inextricably linked to moral values, we would return authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. In particular, parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education.

2.9 Health Care

We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want, the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions. People should be free to purchase health insurance across state lines.

2.10 Retirement and Income Security

Retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government. Libertarians would phase out the current government-sponsored Social Security system and transition to a private voluntary system. The proper and most effective source of help for the poor is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals. We believe members of society will become more charitable and civil society will be strengthened as government reduces its activity in this realm.

3.0 Securing Liberty

The protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of government. Government is constitutionally limited so as to prevent the infringement of individual rights by the government itself. The principle of non-initiation of force should guide the relationships between governments.

3.1 National Defense

We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.

3.2 Internal Security and Individual Rights

The defense of the country requires that we have adequate intelligence to detect and to counter threats to domestic security. This requirement must not take priority over maintaining the civil liberties of our citizens. The Constitution and Bill of Rights shall not be suspended even during time of war. Intelligence agencies that legitimately seek to preserve the security of the nation must be subject to oversight and transparency. We oppose the government's use of secret classifications to keep from the public information that it should have, especially that which shows that the government has violated the law.

3.3 International Affairs

American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy should emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups.

3.4 Free Trade and Migration

We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.

3.5 Rights and Discrimination

We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should not deny or abridge any individual's rights based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs.

3.6 Representative Government

We support electoral systems that are more representative of the electorate at the federal, state and local levels. As private voluntary groups, political parties should be allowed to establish their own rules for nomination procedures, primaries and conventions. We call for an end to any tax-financed subsidies to candidates or parties and the repeal of all laws which restrict voluntary financing of election campaigns. We oppose laws that effectively exclude alternative candidates and parties, deny ballot access, gerrymander districts, or deny the voters their right to consider all legitimate alternatives.

3.7 Self-Determination

Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of individual liberty, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to agree to such new governance as to them shall seem most likely to protect their liberty.

4.0 Omissions

Our silence about any other particular government law, regulation, ordinance, directive, edict, control, regulatory agency, activity, or machination should not be construed to imply approval.

edited 12th Oct '11 9:18:00 AM by secretist

so if I'm reading your post right, secretist, I can boil it all down to "Its your right to choose to have a subpar standard of living. and by choice, we mean, if you're born poor, fuck you"

Half of the "rights" you claim arent rights, theyre simply feelgood ways of supporting deregulation of labor laws and tossing entire sectors into the free market in the name of "giving people liberty"

edited 12th Oct '11 9:19:25 AM by Midgetsnowman

I don't think somebody can actually be a pro-life libertarian.

If you don't believe that a woman's self-ownership is valid and absolute, encompassing all of her body and whatever it might happen to contain, what sort of libertarian are you?

Aside from the (damning) lack of active pro-choice activism, Point One (about personal liberty) of the Libertarian Party platform is morally unassailable.

edited 12th Oct '11 10:34:39 AM by SavageHeathen

Libertarianism has a lot of internal debates including abortion. Libertarians For Life is an example of a side in the debate. Site here

1. Human offspring are human beings, persons from fertilization.

2. Abortion is homicide – the killing of one person by another.

3. There is never a right to kill an innocent person. Prenatally, we are all innocent persons.

4. A prenatal child has the right to be in the mother's body. Parents have no right to evict their children from the crib or from the womb and let them die. Instead both parents, the father as well as the mother, owe them support and protection from harm.

5. No government, nor any individual, has a just power to legally "de-person" any one of us, born or preborn.

6. The proper purpose of the law is to side with the innocent, not against them.

edited 12th Oct '11 10:54:05 AM by secretist

The notion that sides towards too much to the indivual leads to chaos. The notion that sides towards too much to the group is a jail. The former is of the animal, the later is of the drone. What must be seeked is bellance; ballance is the key foundation of ensuring a grand society, not utopia which may not emerge but a option of the most effective.

The indivual if forgotten leads to the system not working... but if you remove the will of the system, the power that be the collective... then you just get a part of a system, a simple instrument that is not used. Bellance is key to foundation: such is of the liberal socialist.

The goverment must not be too big or too small. If too big it strangholds but if too small it cannot maintain the security of the people.

Indivualism may produce one to grand thinking but it encourages elitism and selfishness. That which applies a lack of indivuality is grand for the collective rights but not for ambition. Again: bellane is key. It must not be a den of selfish competitors or a simple collective; it must be a collective of strong willed figures, a notion of liberal socialism. Such is the notion... allowence of companies while policing them, ensurence of leadership without tyrany, allowence of the people to choose without a resultence to populisn. Again: ballance is key.

The perfect society cannot be acheived for one cannot have virtue without vice. What we can do is set a system which allows effiency. Ballance is key to this. Ballance... is to be God to this.

So which thread would be you favorite?

• For Common Things: The Communitarian (between)
• Change Is Good: The Progressive (corner)
• Question Authority: The Radical (betwen)
• Framework for Utopia: The Individualist (corner)
• Breaking the Clock: The Paleolibertarian (between)
• For the Permanent Things: The Paleoconservative (corner)
• God and Country: The Theoconservative (between)
• Mugged by Reality: The Neoconservative (corner)

According to my info, the pairs by oppostion are:

• Pair 1
  • For Common Things: The Communitarian
  • Breaking the Clock: The Paleolibertarian
• Pair 2
  • Change Is Good: The Progressive
  • For the Permanent Things: The Paleoconservative
• Pair 3
  • Question Authority: The Radical
  • God and Country: The Theoconservative
• Pair 4
  • Framework for Utopia: The Individualist
  • Mugged by Reality: The Neoconservative

I will eventually get to a thread for each ideology.

Also, Postmodernism: Populism.

edited 12th Oct '11 3:00:16 PM by secretist

Fuck enforced virtue: It ain't no virtue, it's damn slavery.

Sign me up as The Radical.

edited 12th Oct '11 2:36:30 PM by SavageHeathen

Virtue as it relates to human-to-human interaction should be enforced. I.e. your right to be a fuck-up ends when you're dealing with other people.

As for things that relate to one's own failings, those are your problem, generally speaking.

As a pure high concept, I like big-L Libertarianism. Most proponents and their tenants cease to appeal to me as much when it translates from theoretical concept to (hypothetical) applied policy, however...

Also, heads up, the source who made me familiar with these categories is paleoconservative, just so you know. (For the Permanent Things: Paleoconservatism)

edited 12th Oct '11 2:58:44 PM by secretist

I guess I'd be in the "change is good" corner. I mean, situations change all the time, and we have to change with them.

• 1.0: Depends on circumstance, but broadly correct.

• 1.1: If by opposing regulation of media you oppose banning things like, oh, I dunno, outright lying, and/or things which are broadly considered inappropriate (gratuitous violence and sex) from complete public view (i.e. precluding someone from plastering porn or Happy Tree Friends in Times Square), then I don't completely agree with this. Also, it may or may not be sketchy depending on how you define "aid" with relation to religion.

• 1.2: Basically good.

• 1.3: Basically good.

• 1.4: Bleh.

• 1.5: Fine except for -

Fuck jury nullification, there's no point in having laws, then.

• 1.6: Fine except for -

As you have a right to bear arms, the public has a right to personal safety, and there is a such thing as "unfit to own a weapon" (whether because of actual medical reasons or simple incompetence) and "unsafe for civilian use" (in terms of ammunition). Banning is bad; regulation within reason should be expected to secure the public well-being.

• 2.0: Assumes human rationality, which is not true because rationality would imply inherent human altruism.

• 2.1: Once again, assumes human rationality, with regards to abolishing wage controls.

• 2.2: Once again, assumes human rationality, and this -

- and this -

- make me laugh.

• 2.3: If we're expected to get out of fossil fuels and have both energy independence and a cleaner, safer environment, this is wrong.

• 2.4: Funny, this.

• 2.5: You know, once upon a time all the States had individual monies with no standardization. You what else they didn't have? A working economy.

(FYI, the Constitution also has the Federal Government dealing with interstate commerce, which includes the establishment of standardized monies).

• 2.6: Once again, assumes human rationality, especially with this -

- which just begs the question of "what about consumer safety rights?" Oh, wait, corporations have to be accorded more rights than individuals for a working Austrian/Randian economy! How silly of me to think normal people should matter more!

• 2.7: ~sigh~

So I'm right in understanding that we've abolished unions, yes?

• 2.8: ~sigh~

If this was an assurance that one had the right to homeschool one's kids, then I'd let it slide, but I imagine it's supposed to mean "parents set the standards of education in the school, up to and including allowing them to teach psuedo-educational shit that is propaganda and not actually based on reality and fact."

And -

So, let's cut the middleman out and just let rich people create their gated community schools willy-nilly. Fuck the poor, huzzah! They don't need an education! Nevermind that poverty is tied to a lack of an education, of course.

• 2.9:
  People should be free to purchase health insurance across state lines.

This is the only part of this suggestion that actually sounds decent to me, as it relates to private healthcare systems... which shouldn't even be what we're using anyhow, so, basically, this whole bullet point should go die.

• 2.10:
  We believe members of society will become more charitable and civil society will be strengthened as government reduces its activity in this realm.

I can't even assume Hanlon's Razor here, because this isn't assuming human rationality, this is just failing sociology entirely. Now you're just being willfully ignorant.

• 3.0: I fundamentally disagree on your premise of defining government, so, no.

• 3.1: Yes, but with the caveat of "the draft is fair game in the event of (significant) foreign invasion."

• 3.2: Yes, although martial law and other Necessary Evil ideas would need to be provided for in case of a significant foreign invasion.

• 3.3: Yes, although it makes sense to foster friendship by offering military training expertise and equipment contract deals (yay free market?) to other countries, without actually stationing significant troop numbers or establishing official alliances.

• 3.4: Free immigration and trade require that both parties comply with the deal, so we couldn't just open the borders and hope everybody else is as nice as us. Alright otherwise, however.

• 3.5: Yes.

• 3.6: Yes, except corporations would own the government if there are no restrictions on campaign finance and we're still using the current (or even something broadly similar) voting system. I imagine this isn't a bad thing to you, however, since you assume human rationality and/or do not recognize what this should actually entail.

• 3.7: Sure, in theory. Reality dictates that this would end poorly, but at that point we've probably thrown out that lovely "non-violence" principle.

• 4.0: ...no shit?

Well, I was going to write a more comprehensive thesis about this, but I guess the ninja will suffice as a more to-the-point summary.

A libertarian who believes fetuses are human children to be protected from outside aggression, and whom are afflicted with a particularly poor physical position?

Well... definitely not The Neoconservative. Past that, I couldn't say. Perhaps The Progressive.

Two words:

Bio Shock

You assume human irrationality which is actually a harder position to take. It also has had historically, ties to fascism because fascists believe that people couldn't think for themselves so they had to think for them, the logic behind all forms of totalitarianism.

Note:Also added info on foreign policy to the end of the OP.

Y'know, I was gonna ask questions about Individualism and Libertarianism, but since you've Godwin'd your own thread I'm less inclined now...

removed copypasta that stretching page.

Just link to it, dude. Don't copy it here.

edited 17th Oct '11 11:45:28 PM by FastEddie

By that logic North Korea is a democracy. Realy? This should point out the lack of logic in that statement.

When noting your statements please do not break Godwin's Law.

edited 13th Oct '11 11:46:07 AM by Ailedhoo